Seven weeks have now passed since I first emailed my principle objections about the Giza Power Plant theory to Chris Dunn. To recap, I suggested that the other major pyramids do not show any of the features which would allow them to be regarded as power plants, despite him making great play of, for example, the quality of the sarcophagus in the Second Pyramid. Consequently I asked him whether, despite this somewhat confusing logic, he feels the Great Pyramid should be taken out of the context of the others and regarded as much older - and if so how he justifies such an assertion in the face of, for example, the evidence we have amassed to the contrary in G:TT.

Twice in the last 7 weeks I have contacted Chris to ask him when I might expect a response, indicating that my readership might find it somewhat strange that the author of such a high-profile alternative theory appeared not to be defending it in the face of some relatively simple challenges. On both occasions he has had the courtesy to reply but has indicated that he is too busy to prepare one. Since my primary question as to whether or not he believes the Great Pyramid should be taken out of the context of the others, at least, is one which could be answered with a simple "yes" or "no", I will leave it up to my readership to decide whether such simple but challenging questions are being evaded.

Of course if Chris does decide to respond when he has more time I will take down this posting and continue the discussion.